Doutherd v. Montesdeoca, et al

Filing 65

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/11/2018 DENYING 50 Motion to Quash. Cingular Wireless shall produce records showing the call history for both incoming and outgoing calls from Plaintiff Tyrone Doutherd's cell phone from 8/27/2015 to 8/27/2017. Plaintiff shall provide any necessary authorization to Cingular Wireless for the release of such records. Cingular Wireless first shall produce the records to Plaintiff's counsel, Ellen Dove at 5325 Elkhorn Blvd., # 160, Sacramento, CA 95842. Plaintiff's counsel shall have the opportunity to redact and produce the redacted records to Defendant UPS Ground Freight, Inc. within seven days after receipt from Cingular Wireless. On the same date as Plaintiff� 39;s counsel produces the redacted records, Plaintiff's counsel shall provide a privilege log identifying each redaction by the date and time listed on the records and providing the basis for each redaction with sufficient information to allo w Defendant to evaluate whether the redaction was appropriate. UPSF shall have 7 days to contact Plaintiff's counsel with any issues or questions with regard to the redacted records, Plaintiff's counsel shall respond within 7 days. Therea fter, if UPSF is unsatisfied with Plaintiff's response to its questions or challenges, it shall have 7 days from the date of Plaintiff's response to raise with the Court any challenge to Plaintiff's redactions. This Order does not c ompel the production of any text messages, attachments or photographs, Defendant having previously withdrawn that request. Other than the timing specified above, the parties shall not be limited by the fact discovery cut-off in filing a subsequent motion pertaining to Plaintiff's cell phone records. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 10 11 12 HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP EMILY BURKHARDT VICENTE (SBN 263990) Email: ebvicente@huntonak.com D. ANDREW QUIGLEY (SBN 280986 ) Email: AQuigley@huntonak.com 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 KAREN JENNINGS EVANS (SBN 197046) Email: kevans@huntonak.com 50 California Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 975-3700 Facsimile: (415) 975-3701 Attorneys for Defendant UPS GROUND FREIGHT, INC., erroneously named as UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TYRONE DOUTHERD, Plaintiff, v. DORIS MARIE MONTESDEOCA, Estate of LUCILLE J. SMITH, deceased, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1-30, Defendants Case No.: 2:17-cv-02225-MCE-EFB -----------------[PROPOSED] ORDER DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF TYRONE DOUTHERD’S CELL PHONE RECORDS Complaint Filed: August 25, 2017 Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England Magistrate Judge: Hon. Edmund F. Brennan 24 25 26 27 28 -------------[PROPOSED] ORDER DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF TYRONE DOUTHERD’S CELL PHONE RECORDS 1 Having considered all arguments regarding Plaintiff’s Motion To Quash 2 Defendant UPS Ground Freight, Inc.’s Subpoena to Cingular Wireless, the Court 3 hereby orders as follows: 4 The Motion is hereby DENIED. 5 The Court issues the following ORDER: 6 • Cingular Wireless shall produce records showing the call history for both 7 incoming and outgoing calls from Plaintiff Tyrone Doutherd’s cell phone 8 from August 27, 2015 to August 27, 2017; 9 Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 10 11 12 13 • Plaintiff shall provide any necessary authorization to Cingular Wireless for the release of such records; • Cingular Wireless first shall produce the records to Plaintiff’s counsel, Ellen Dove at 5325 Elkhorn Blvd., #160, Sacramento, CA 95842; • Plaintiff’s counsel shall have the opportunity to redact the telephone 14 numbers that invade the privacy rights of individual non-parties or violate 15 the attorney-client privilege, and produce the redacted records to Defendant 16 UPS Ground Freight, Inc. (“UPSF”) within seven days after receipt from 17 Cingular Wireless; 18 • On the same date as Plaintiff’s counsel produces the redacted records, 19 Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide a privilege log identifying each redaction by 20 the date and time listed on the records and providing the basis for each 21 redaction with sufficient information to allow Defendant to evaluate whether 22 the redaction was appropriate; 23 • UPSF shall have 7 days to contact Plaintiff’s counsel with any issues or 24 questions with regard to the redacted records, Plaintiff’s counsel shall 25 respond within 7 days; 26 27 28 1 --------------[PROPOSED] ORDER DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF TYRONE DOUTHERD’S CELL PHONE RECORDS 1 • Thereafter, if UPSF is unsatisfied with Plaintiff’s response to its questions or 2 challenges, it shall have 7 days from the date of Plaintiff’s response to raise 3 with the Court any challenge to Plaintiff’s redactions; 4 • This Order does not compel the production of any text messages, 5 attachments or photographs, Defendant having previously withdrawn that 6 request; 7 • Other than the timing specified above, the parties shall not be limited by the 8 fact discovery cut-off in filing a subsequent motion pertaining to Plaintiff’ 9 cell phone records. Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 11 Dated: December __, 2018 ____________________________ Hon. Edmund F. Brennan U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Approved as to form: /s/ Karen Jennings Evans Karen Jennings Evans Hunton Andrews Kurth Attorneys for Defendant UPSF /s/ Ellen Dove Ellen Dove Attorney for Plaintiff 25 26 27 28 2 --------------[PROPOSED] ORDER DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF TYRONE DOUTHERD’S CELL PHONE RECORDS

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?